So, you realise you are basically describing Crusader Kings 2, right? (Ok, it doesn't have admirals per se, but it does have disloyal generals.) I feel like I must be missing something everyone else saw, because it seems like "CK2" should have been the first post in the thread.

CK2 was about conquest of other kingdoms while maintaining some internal stability by "divide and rule" and fighting against backstabbing of your nobles. Also it was about succession, dynasty and heirs.

While I don't mind these aspects I want focus on something else and a different mood. You start as an emperor. Not as just one of the nobles, but THE EMPEROR :) And I want it to be felt. You can't lost your throne, it's an instant game over (and when you are disposed the empire crumbles to dust, since YOU are destined to rule and YOU are the only one that can do it :)). You know, the typical megalomania :) It's strictly about playing as an emperor, not as a noble. Also I want more vivid internal struggle. Not just a bunch of nobles that you can deal with. I want rebelious population, guilds, various factions, usurpers, aliens invasion, spread of dangerous ideas, fight among fellow citizens of the empire (you rule various races), space pandemics, lost colonies, ancient artifacts, internal diplomacy, stability of the empire.

but what about games like Age of Castles or Ant War?

BTW, here is a my minigame in that style: http://silverlemur.com/minigames/wiztowersim.php (no download needed)

In AoC for example, you have different classes and each excels in a different stat, so that allows for several different playstyles. Also, like the game you posted, there are random event that happen every day.

Classes are made by the designer, this a limit how many you can make. Random events are a bit better (since you can reuse the same event several times in one game), but each event still has to be crafted by the designer.

On the other hand a province on a map is a building block. You can (actually have to) have more than one province on a map. These provinces can be identical, the whole idea is that the RELATION between provinces (position on the map) produces unique gameplay (not the provinces themselves). Now, compare coding events or classes to making a map. Plus, it's not that hard to make a procedurally generated map! It's simply a self propelled machine.

Classes and events are mechanic. Map with provinces is content.

Mechanics are expensive to make and hard to balance. Content is cheap, easy to balance and produces emergent behaviour.

Try that one (another my minigame), it will be even more visible. It's purely mechanic based, very fun, original, thematic and everything but... not replayable.

http://silverlemur.com/minigames/radioactiveshelter/

So basically what you're saying is that if we go for an event-based approach, gameplay is gonna be roughly similar every time you play the game so it gets boring quickly.

Yes, but not only that.

Map with provinces provides a synergy, the final effect is better than the sum of its parts. If you have provinces on an island it results in a completrely different strategy than if you have then on a continent and you are surrounded by two big enemies (set of provinces shared by same owner) and than if you are on the same big continent but surrounded by dozens of small enemies (few neighbour provinces per owner). And this all has emerged on its own, it was not really scripted or anything.

Another thing is that events makes the player only RESPOND. If you have a map you can PLAN your strategy and predict what you will do, you can ACT. In case of events you don't know what will hapen and when and you can't make much of a plan. Actually, very varied and random events are worse, because it results in a total unpredictability and chaos...

But what if there were no random events (or not only them) but random OPPORTUNITIES? Like you get a random opportunity and you can decide if you want to pursue it, also the random opportunity lasts for at least several turns so you can plan. Maybe something like that could work?

BTW, here is an interesting flashgame, a mix of card game and a minimalistic map (but you don't move any units on the map and geenrally there are no units to fight):

http://www.kongregate.com/games/africacrossgames/the-liberation-of-north-korea

So basically what you're saying is that if we go for an event-based approach, gameplay is gonna be roughly similar every time you play the game so it gets boring quickly.

I start to think that maybe a map + events that affect the map are the way to go?

Oh, you can have the player manage the nobles.
Some french king had decided every nobleman should be with him 9 months a year, making them spend money on parties and all and then loaned them money, making them more dependent on him.(because nobles can rebel)

On a more serious note, just managing nobles seems meh to me. As King of Men said, if you want to manage nobles go and play CK2, it portrayed it very good. I don't think I woulod be able to do it much better than they. Plus, I lean more towards a bureaucratic empire, like there is this emperor and organizations, guilds, corporations, social struggle, spreaders of dangerous ideas. Less feudal and more modern (not that they can't be nobles there, I don't have anything agains them, but just limiting it to nobles seems not so great to me).

On a more serious note, just managing nobles seems meh to me. As King of Men said, if you want to manage nobles go and play CK2, it portrayed it very good. I don't think I woulod be able to do it much better than they. Plus, I lean more towards a bureaucratic empire, like there is this emperor and organizations, guilds, corporations, social struggle, spreaders of dangerous ideas. Less feudal and more modern (not that they can't be nobles there, I don't have anything agains them, but just limiting it to nobles seems not so great to me).